Summary The Westjet Airlines Boeing 737-200, WJA 28, serial number21770, departed Abbotsford International Airport, BritishColumbia, at 0632 Pacific standard time for Calgary, Alberta, with 5crew and 52passengers on board. Shortly after the aircraft passed through 1500feet above ground level, the pilots heard a series of loud bangs similar to those of an engine compressor stall. The initial indications on the engine instruments showed abnormally high exhaust gas temperature and a declining power turbine speed on the No.2 engine. The pilot flying levelled the aircraft at about 3000feet above ground level and carried out the engine limit/surge/stall quick reference checklist. The pilots confirmed a problem with the No.2 engine and reduced thrust to idle, where the engine appeared to operate normally. Flight attendants confirmed that there was no obvious visible damage to the engine. The pilots then notified Abbotsford Tower of their intention to return to Abbotsford International Airport and informed the passengers. The airport emergency response services were called out but were not required to attend the aircraft. The aircraft landed on Runway25 at 0718 and taxied back to the terminal without further incident. There was no injury or fire. Ce rapport est galement disponible en franais. Other Factual Information Engine performance and cockpit indications were normal during start, taxi, take-off, and the initial climb, until the loud bangs were heard. Passengers seated at the rear on the right side of the aircraft saw flames coming from the exhaust in conjunction with the loud bangs. The captain advised the passengers that they had experienced a technical problem with the No.2 engine and were preparing to return to Abbotsford. Figure 1. Nose cone installation After the engines were shut down, maintenance personnel found that the extended nose dome assembly (seeFigure1) of the No.2 engine had detached and jammed into the engine inlet guide vanes. The nose dome had broken away from the magnesium engine accessory support to which it is normally attached with four nuts. The nuts are threaded onto steel studs on the accessory support. Examination found that the four nuts had remained attached to the studs, but that the studs had pulled out from the accessory support, and a section of the support near the number-three stud was missing. The nose dome showed secondary impact damage and deformation as a result of contact with the inlet guide vanes. This damage included deformation of the tip, separation of one of the acoustic panels and partial delamination of another, and deformation of the aft edge of the nose dome. The engine nose dome is removed during certain engine inspections and replacement of engine components. The nose dome had been removed on 9January2002 to facilitate the troubleshooting of an engine pressure ratio problem. A search of the Transport Canada Service Difficulty Reporting database revealed that nose dome separation had occurred before. Pratt Whitney, the engine manufacturer, and Boeing Commercial Airplanes have launched awareness campaigns for operators and maintenance facilities. However, nose dome mounting failures continue to be reported at the rate of about two per year. Maintenance personnel removed the No.2 engine, a Pratt Whitney modelJT8D-17, serial number702614, from the aircraft at Abbotsford and shipped it to Calgary, Alberta, for overhaul and repair. Since the last overhaul, the engine had accumulated 5376hours and 6366cycles. The engine nose dome, part number65-85369-12, serial numberRR359, and the accessory support, part number633759, revisionH, were sent to the TSB Engineering Branch for structural and metallurgical analysis. The part number on the accessory support indicated the time of manufacture to be between1976 and1978. TSB Engineering Branch report LP 08/02 stated the following: The studs from the front accessory support had pulled out and remained with their respective nuts in the nose dome assembly. The attachment points of the nose dome were subsequently removed and then sectioned to extract the stud/nut assemblies intact. The coarse thread of stud number one was heavily smeared with significant damage to the thread crests. The coarse thread of studs number two, three and four were filled with material from the front accessory support. The surface of the pulled-out front accessory support material on studs two and four appeared smoother than that of the material in the thread of stud number three. Also, stud number three was slightly bent. The thread in stud boss number one had been completely removed to the depth of the stud engagement and the bore appeared somewhat polished. The thread in stud bosses two and four were similar in that, although the thread had been removed, the thread roots were still distinguishable, and the surfaces where the crests had been removed showed some rub damage. The thread in stud boss number three showed only partial crest removal. Longitudinal sections taken from the front accessory support at stud bosses one and three were mounted for metallurgical analysis. Examination of the mounted sections showed that nine thread crests had been sheared off in each case, with axial deformation consistent with stud pull out. The fracture faces of the sheared thread from stud boss number one were more planar than those of stud boss number three suggesting that: a) stud boss number one had failed earlier than stud boss number three and had been working for some time and b) stud boss number three failed in a combined angular/axial fashion. Longitudinal sections taken through studs one and two were mounted for metallurgical analysis. Significant thread crest damage was observed on the first four threads of stud number one. Flow lips observed either side of the affected thread crests are consistent with rotational interaction with a harder material. Direct Rockwell hardness testing of the stud material averaged 29Rockwell (HRC) for both studs examined. These results are typical for this particular application and within the specified hardness range of 26-32HRC.